That's like the Cuba buying Florida from the USA. Floridians wouldn't consider that "legal"
People can't be legally bought and sold.
People can't be legally bought and sold.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Amer...
The US acquired territory from Mexico as part of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, intended to end the Mexican-American war. Mexico lost 55% of its territory, but did receive $15M as some sort of compensation. Is that legal and if so in what sense, given that it was driven by a desire to end a war?
Much more recently, how about territory acquired by Russia in the vicinity of Ukraine. Suppose that the Crimeans truly did unanimously agree to this, would that make it legal? Is it legal if 50% of the residents agree? What about those with economic interests there who are not residents?
Sub-areas within a nation may secede and form their own nations, but recognition of the new nations by peer nations is required for legitimacy.
So from that perspective: Mexico, agreed to by the government and done. Crimea, not consented by the Ukrainian government, and an open question as to peer recognition of independence (or now incorporation into Russia).
The grey areas (e.g. ceding land under duress) are why land has historically been the chief casus belli.
I'm no legal expert but I'm reasonably confident one or both of Florida and the USA would find that to be an illegal transaction. Presumably Britain and Mauritius did not, at the time.
The harsh reality is that it genuinely doesn't matter what the UN declares. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and are almost universally ignored.
The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are.
In this case the claim of illegality is backed up by a court the UK was one of the original proponents of, that the UK has presided over, that the UK was the first state to submit a case to. As such, whether or not the decision is enforceable it's quite a bit more than "just claiming it's illegal".
The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6.
Unless the 116 countries voting to uphold it are actually willing to do something about it, it's near completely meaningless.
Can we stop pretending that the UN has power over anything?
Is any action enough to make it meaningful? Do they have to start a war? Win the war?
Right -- that line doesn't seem blurry to me at all.
Bonded labour is still a thing, something that built a large amount of the middle east and parts of china.